i find it funny you think of wizchan as /dep/, like comparing rats to a bird. but it is more hilarious you want everyone to support your pointless ideology. natalism and antinatalism are completely meaningless for us wizards. we are not reproducing. you can claim to be antinatalist and feel special, antinatalist wizards, natalist wizards, and wizards that are nrither of the two are all not reproducing. if you want your dumb ideology to matter, try convincing people that actually reproduce
one does not have to defend life to to reject antinatalism. you are mistaking antinatalism and natalism for some crucial dichotomy. you can also reject all of it
/dep/ appears to unfortunately be the majority of posters here, so he's not too far off base.
>>164935>morality is meaningless and useless for wizards
We should not ignore injustice. Reproduction is the worst of crimes and we should call it such.
of course> counterfactual
not a single argument against it with any weight, I'd be a bit of a retard to not support it.
This is also my position, I neutral if normal people wanted to breed and create more people like i neutral if a bird ir rabbit wanted to reproduce. It's just life manifesting itself.
Benatar's assymetry is irrefutable. There is no need for need to be. Procreation is potentially the worst act one can do. Because it encompasses a variety of negative potential (some with a more or less probabilistic degree) subjective experiences uncluding torture, severe mental problems, etc etc no need to make a list.
I don't care about antinatalism. It is yet another ideology based on the thought of "helping others". I hate normals, they might as well reproduce and continue the cycle of suffering for as long as they want. After all, normals like suffering. I think people could have lived happily if they wanted to but they don't want to. They crave suffering for some reason. Well, let them have it. In fact, I want to increase their suffering, not erase it/lessen it. They deserve to suffer.
people punish themselves even though they suffer because they're addicted to releasing deprivations they make mistakes and can't prevent their own sufering by circumstance that is the fate of all sentience to suffer they have no cchoice to compete and get angry if you don't because you aren't motivated by addictions but most humans are dishonest trash knowing full well this isnt worth it and consensual slavery "love" isn't unconditional , they are bigoted and evil
after my friend from the shakpardon UAC spacestation jetted off to mars antinatalism seems perplex
beep beep contact me on starnet
Its ludicrous to think interstellar travel is possible, this isnt star trek there is no life anywhere else
Yeah, I'm an antinatalist and a misanthrope… life is a prison
I am inclined to support pessimistic philosophies, having works from Schopenhauer, Ligotti, Benetar, Cioran, etc.. However, while the responses against anti-natalism ITT are rather odd, I do not, myself, support it inasmuch as I do not see an intellectual practice of anti-natalism gaining traction. My reasons are built upon personal experiences and a general discontent; those very experiences would not resonate with normals, who tend to follow along the duties of life without cause for concern. Any attempt will be fruitless, as the dread of life comes infrequently to them (either in the often-described "midlife crisis" concept, or in the midsts of death).
Exactly. Most people aren't thinking about it at all. They just learn it the hard way when they complain about how expensive it is to raise 3 kids. In some places people are getting smarter and having less or no children, but most children are accidents. there's still a weird god complex that some other people have though where they want to pass their genes down due to superiority even though a lot of geniuses never had children at all.
This guy was pretty bad ass. He was a wizard and openly shat on religion even though it was almost 1000 years ago.
Yes, the best thing about AN is it breaks the 'eternal recurrence' multiverse "theory" that many wizzies are being memed into believing. No life, no return. Bazinga!
I am in favour of it but its not like I want to be, I wish I did live in a world and existence that was a positive one but I can't be blind either.>>163855
Here is why I hate rightards
nope, i fully support it
Eh even then you will evolve from evolution again.
Most antinatalists are losers who want something to feel good for once in their life and this idea is the fittest as it takes literally zero effort at the same time validates their suffering as normalcy. A poet they quoted says something like shut the mind as to not think, shut the eyes as to not see the sun; shows how bias toward the negative they are, show them happiness and they will screech as if their eyes were burnt by the sun.
Can you explain this more? You make it sounds as if AN want their suffering when it is in fact the most despicable thing to them that they want to ride the world of.
He's referring to how depcrabs like antinatalists refer to happy people as "delusional" or "coping". If they really wanted happiness they'd try and pursue happiness, not just wallow and whine.
No, only those who are economically poor or genetically shit (weak, short, ugly, low iq, etc) shouldnt breed. The economically well and genetically good should have (more than they're having) kids
>>163910>if you don't kill yourself you don't want to die
tired of this retarded argument. Survival instinct is unfortunately a very strong thing and even the most suicidal struggle to overcome that
So, just another name for "I want to live"?
Yes,the will to live is hard coded into your body, not your consciousness.
Antinatalism is the morally correct attitude. However, it is delusional to expect ordinary people to understand this. Most people desire children, not just sex. It is important to remember this. They need a family that gives them stability and a sense of belonging. I'd even say that lots of people live for the sake of their family only. Instead of the crazy hatred that some people here have towards them, we should pity normals. We should practice mercy, forgiveness and love towards them. They are poor and lost souls who just drift along with life. They are the broken, weak and sick ones. Not us.
>>163800>You guys are all in favour of antinatalism, right? I mean, do any of you actually find it offensive or counterfactual?
no, antinatalism doesn't seem useful to me
It's useful as a rationalization and moralization of behavior one is already passively engaged in.
To put it another way. People here aren't wizards/celibate because they are antinatalist.
Some became antinatalist because it says what they were already doing was moral. So they could be considered moral passively without having to do anything, change themselves, or make any effort. Hell, it allows some to feel morally superior to the vast majority of other people for once in their lives.
So it is pushed here because it is useful and convenient. Thing is very few sincerely believe it.
This thing could be interpreted as you say too, certainly. However, there is the other side of the coin too. I mean, people here generally went through shittier things than normal people. We experienced suffering and desperation more fully, sooner, and for longer periods than normals.
Chances are, if you post here, that you are in a bad financial situation or about to face homelessness or shitty wageslaving jobs. Because even if you have a trade or went to uni you are so socially retarded and/or hate being around others that you realize you can't function on your own in society in the long run. My example is pretty good: I was considered smart by teachers in high school and all that but I just don't like being in a community. I didn't go to university or college because I knew that I would despise the atmosphere and the fact that I would have to be around normals all day and live among them in a dorm. I tried other things but I can't stand being around others. Most people are needlessly aggressive, dominating and like to bully "weird" people like me. I also don't have anything that I would seriously like to do as a job. I'm a weak person by society's standards but not weak enough to be considered for bux, apparently. As a healthy male society treats you like dirt if you are weak or if you simply don't want to be an asshole like normals. I hate this social darwinistic meatgrinder that we call society. I just want to exist in peace and tranquility. But no, I'm forced to interact with this evil society if I don't want to die as a homeless person. The best part is that I never asked for this life. It was pushed onto me. And since suicide requires a great deal of courage and initiative I'm stuck here.
You can say that some people are just anitinatalists here because they can't get sex. But that doesn't change the fact that life is horrible. Doesn't change the fact that there is literally no reason to exist and to procreate.
In my opinion it’s an unrealistic utopian kind of idea. Most people will never stop reproducing or even hear of antinatalism, so it will never effect the world in any meaningful way. It’s like saying something like “driving cars is bad because it pollutes”. It’s true but it doesn’t mean people will stop driving cars anytime soon.
I can't decide.
Having children is a quality challenge.
No, having children is a natural desire and the ultimate purpose of sex so I have no issue with it by itself. I occasionally feel the urge myself, even though I am 100% wizard, will likely stay 100% wizard, and know the idyllic life I am dreaming of is mostly just fantasy in today's fucked up world.
I am strongly in favor of social order and personal responsibility; of a kind of eugenics where genetic diseases are removed, forbidding immigrants from having children, only having the children when you have the time and resources to look after them (both have taxed employment minimum the previous 2 years, plus a combined savings of $5000). Also both the mother AND the father must be together for at least 2 years, both must clearly agree to have the child, and stay in the child's life, and be free of drugs (including smoking and alcoholism) and no recent criminal history (minimum 4 years).
In other words, I would make both men AND succubi get a reversible vasectomy near birth; and you can only get it reversed if you are both a citizen of the country, you both consent to having a child, show means of supporting the child, and both have a drug and genetic screen and a criminal check done. The child is scanned during pregnancy for genetic defects and an abortion becomes available if needed.
I don't like seeing irresponsible unstable parents, baby traps, people having to grow up in misery because of their disabilities, children (particularly boys) growing up mentally stunted because of single mothers/absent fathers or bad parents who just sit their child in front of a screen, and the ridiculous unchecked population growth. This is to say nothing of the horrors of bad parents with addiction, poverty, etc. I want responsible parents who will be active in their child's life (but not a helicopter) and bring them up confident, strong, happy and mature. I think my conditions would remove a huge percentage of irresponsible pregnancies and probably make it more expensive to have children, and I'm all in favor of a lower global population. But I would still want those who can, and willing, to have 2 children (provided they can pass all the conditions) get some help and advice by having free hospital visits, parent classes, childcare, tax credits, etc.
By my own rules I would not be allowed to have children, nor would I exist, and I'm okay with that. Not that it would matter anyway as no government in the world would be brave enough to enact controversial conditions like this, not even China.
There is only "massive unchecked population growth" in Africa, the ME, India, and China. In the west population growth is nearly 100% fueled by immigrants and minorities, in many places the western native population has negative population growth.
Your policies would lead to economic contraction, population collapse, age extension crisis, and then total failure. You either need to massively increase reproduction rates among natives or increase immigration.
>>174882>In the west population growth is nearly 100% fueled by immigrants and minorities, in many places the western native population has negative population growth.
I'm aware. My country is already 30% non-native, with the Z and A generation having higher percentages.>Your policies would lead to economic contraction, population collapse, age extension crisis, and then total failure.
I disagree with the last one. It will be difficult for a few generations, especially without robotics and automation keeping up, but after that I think it will become stable again. And the rest are not necessarily bad things. Hopefully with a much lower population there will be a far more responsible and sustainable population, both as parents and in economics.>You either need to massively increase reproduction rates among natives or increase immigration.
The only reasons we "need" these is because of the current retarded economic system where we *must* have constant growth, both in population and in the economy, to feed the debt monster that we have created. It is an unsustainable system with only one inevitable outcome: failure. So since the economy is going to fail anyway, some predict it will even fail in the 2030s, we might as well use the reset.
I'm an antinatalist in my society. It is a kind of cruelty to force kids to grow up in this insane hellhole remnant of western civilization, especially in its cities. On the other hand, having children in a pre-industrial agrarian society with benevolent leadership would not be cruel. Also, raising kids is far less of a burden in such an environment as they are properly utilized: given clear purpose and tasks as soon as they can take instructions. The post-industrial revolution west is a thoroughly vampiric apparatus. I think many people have an inkling of this, whether they realize it consciously or not, which is one reason why birthrates decline in the first world. The Amish are onto something and 90% of teens do not leave the church after rumspringa. The rumspringa gives the kids a choice in what lifestyle makes them most happy. I wish all kids could have this choice but it will never happen because those who steer this culture see their tenants as less than human.
Adding to this, I would say for a millionaire in the west, or anyone who has enough money to ensure that their kids would be set for life despite work status, having kids would not be cruel.
You guys who advocate for elitist and rich people to have children are delusional.
First: even if you could somehow make sure that people with strong genes could reproduce only, keep in mind that there are numerous diseases and viruses in the world that can't be cured and can kill you or cause you intense suffering.
Second: Natural disasters will struck you regardless of who you are.
Third: Accidents. Literally all it takes is taking a wrong step and falling the wrong way and you end up as a vegetable the rest of your life.
Fourth: Conflict. It is the default state of nature. People will always end up fighting each other eventually and causing suffering to others around them.
In short, life is despair. Your fictional utopia is what it is, just a dream. Life is inherently evil and suffering, if you can't comprehend this then you are either ignorant or delude yourself actively.
a moral statement can't be counterfactual, I generelly agree with the sentiment, but ultimetly I know people will keep reproducing
Omnicide is a the ultimate moral act. It'd erase all suffering, now and forever.
No you idiot, ever heard of evolution
The first 3 of your points are irrelevant to most people for %90+ of their lives. Most people,throughout their lifetime or at least until near the end of it, do not lose their lives over accidents or natural disasters. We live in 2020 so we're pretty covered on natural disaster part. As for diseases, same applies. Most people don't ever go through any disease of that severity, or at least any disease that causes death or irreversible damage until they get old.
As for fourth,conflict can be handled well by the individual if they were given the tools,support structures etc. when they are young.Absence of childhood trauma etc. also contributes.Conflict is not bad if you can handle it without suffering irreversible damage, if anything it's good because it helps you mature and provides you with life experience.
Though I agree that life is mostly filled with suffering, it doesn't have to be the case.There are plenty of people who go through life happily without suffering from any of those because they simply won the birth lottery.Life can be pretty good if you are lucky to be born in a rich family with huge social connections,all problems can be diminished or most often,outright solved with money and connections.
I agree that life is shitty as fuck for most people and most people ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BREED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE,but this is just sour grapes.
If you base your philosophy on utilitarian values then you'll have to account for the actual consequences of propagating it. If only the most intelligent people are even capable of considering it then propagating it will lead to the population becoming dumber, which will cause even more suffering. Nuking the entire planet would be another thing
What guarantee do the parents with great circumstances have that their children will also have good circumstances? Can we even quantify or calculate what constitutes a "good life"? No, it's completely impossible. What gives anyone the right to gamble with the welfare of another when they don't know if their life will be good, or if it's even possible for life to be good? And to what end would you want life to continue? What's there to be gained, and what's lost by letting it all die? It's a massive gamble taken with someone else's chips and without anyone knowing what the grand prize is or if there even is one. The only counter-argument I can see is that it's all hopeless because life will spring up again anyway even if it were all destroyed, and even if the entire universe were destroyed there might be a new one or infinite others.
I really don't give a fuck. People can have children for all I care, I'm going to be dead within the next 20 years anyway. And militant antinatalists are so fucking obnoxious, kinda like militant atheists or vegans
>>163876>atinatalists say that suicide is bad or that they wouldn't kill them self
This part is really not difficult to grasp. The entire thing is about trying to prevent suffering, and suicide is something that will likely cause profound suffering for someone who cared about the person killing themselves. Accepting antinatalism also doesn't make you suicidal; most people who have the privilege to even know about the philosophy and then be intelligent enough to understand and accept it probably live pretty decent lives - which doesn't prevent them from recognizing that life as a whole is a shit show. Then, if you're one of the few people who were fortunate enough to understand, it becomes your duty to explain it to the rest so that something might be done.
The problem is that retards won't be impressed with anti-natalism. It's usually just depressed 100+IQs. This of course means that it will only succeed in eliminating higher empathy and intelligence individuals and thereby increasing suffering further.
Of course it will never be done voluntarily by everyone, and even if it were that still wouldn't help all the animal life that's suffering. We have hydrogen bombs though